Ferrari & #1 status policy [split]

Alonso had a relatively (compared to Hamilton, anyway) competitive team mate in 2005 and 2006. In 2007 there was too much else going on to pin it down just to his team mate's strength. His status in the team in 2008 didn't do much to help his performance, even if his team mate had to bring out a safety car. 2009 was an oddball year and we can see the effects of an uncompetitive Massa on Ferrari's standings ever since his role there was defined in such clear terms.

Alonso may not want it, but he NEEDS a competitive team mate to push him and Ferrari needs two strong drivers racing each other and the rest of the field if they want the WCC (and the WDC, which is a bye-product of the WCC).

I'm afraid I don't understand the first sentence at all.

What we don't know is how Alonso would perform if he had a more competitive team-mate. We won't know that unless Ferrari decide to replace Massa. The fact that they haven't replaced Massa suggests that the Ferrari team themselves are worried that Alonso might be adversely affected.

Oh, but that quote doesn't say anything about equal treatment, even if you want to twist it like that.

The implication is very clear, though. If you have a new part but only one, who is going to get it? Your great champion or your very good driver? If there is an optimum lap for both drivers to pit on, who will you call in, your great champion or your number one driver?

Furthermore, having a "great champion" and a "very good driver" is what McLaren also seeked in Hamilton-Kovalainen or Hamilton-Button, and Red Bull is seeking with Vettel and Webber, and what Lotus is seeking in Raikkonen and Grosjean.

Agree, perhaps with the exception of Hamilton/Button.

So Domenicalli didn't say anything extraordinary, even if some are desperately trying to clutch at straws.

I agree it's nothing extraordinary - I agree with you it's common practice and, as I've said in this thread, it is how I would run a team and I think Alonso has fully earned the benefits that come from it (it is pretty much the same as I viewed how McLaren operated in the Hamilton/Kova years). I only brought it up in response to the assertion that Ferrari do not operate in this way at all, which I think is incorrect.

So no trying to clutch at straws - I think it's fair enough, that it makes sense, that my favourite driver has benefitted from similar treatment in the past etc. I just think it happens.

The implication is very clear, though. If you have a new part but only one, who is going to get it? Your great champion or your very good driver? If there is an optimum lap for both drivers to pit on, who will you call in, your great champion or your number one driver?

I don't see it as clear. It depends. Who is in front of the WDC at that point, how good is the car at that point, and how many races to go? Don't forget, Raikkonen was hired as their "superstar", but ended up in the "very good driver" role. So the amount of help or support they get is not pre-defined, depends on their performance.

I only brought it up in response to the assertion that Ferrari do not operate in this way at all, which I think is incorrect.

What we don't know is how Alonso would perform if he had a more competitive team-mate. We won't know that unless Ferrari decide to replace Massa. The fact that they haven't replaced Massa suggests that the Ferrari team themselves are worried that Alonso might be adversely affected.

Now tell me the obvious candidates that should have replaced Massa with guaranteed better results. Funnily enough, the majority of fans of any driver always cry "Oh, no!" as soon as it's suggested that their man could go to Ferrari.

And who knows, a lot of them might indeed end up like Fisichella in 2009. For which of course there could then be no other reason than Alonsos evil powers in the team. Or maybe it would be Santanders fault...

What we don't know is how Alonso would perform if he had a more competitive team-mate. We won't know that unless Ferrari decide to replace Massa. The fact that they haven't replaced Massa suggests that the Ferrari team themselves are worried that Alonso might be adversely affected.

Or it could suggest that they had a little loyalty and faith in Massa but I dont think thats what you want to believe. At the very least, if Ferrari dont replace Massa at the end of this year, it wont be because they're afraid Alonso will be affected. It will be because they dont think there's a better option out there, which there arguably isn't at the moment. We know they were in talks with Webber, but he wasn't going to leave Red Bull if he didn't have to and now he's not an option.

What we don't know is how Alonso would perform if he had a more competitive team-mate. We won't know that unless Ferrari decide to replace Massa. The fact that they haven't replaced Massa suggests that the Ferrari team themselves are worried that Alonso might be adversely affected.

Now tell me the obvious candidates that should have replaced Massa with guaranteed better results. Funnily enough, the majority of fans of any driver always cry "Oh, no!" as soon as it's suggested that their man could go to Ferrari.

And who knows, a lot of them might indeed end up like Fisichella in 2009. For which of course there could then be no other reason than Alonsos evil powers in the team. Or maybe it would be Santanders fault...

Well, maybe more than half the drivers on the grid could get better results than Massa has achieved. Of course there is never any guarantee, another driver might do worse, but that hasn't stopped teams from replacing drivers before.

The problem which Ferrari now have, is the widespread suspicion that they would only be looking for a #2 to Alonso, which will rightly discourage many drivers from accepting any offer they might make.

Really Ferrari have created a situation where they can only look at people like Kovy and Glock, who are presumably desperate to get out of the bottom-ranked teams. But that might actually suit Ferrari anyway, as long as they feel that Alonso is delivering.

So the critics say Ferrari is at fault for having a #1 driver. Years ago Ferrari were of course criticized heavily for not declaring a #1 driver. Seem the common thread here is to gainsay and oppose whatever Ferrari do. Fortunately the team gives the right amount of attention and the correct response to all these flip-flop criticisms. They just get on with winning races. Hopefully a few more titles aren't too far away either.

Well, maybe more than half the drivers on the grid could get better results than Massa has achieved. Of course there is never any guarantee, another driver might do worse, but that hasn't stopped teams from replacing drivers before.

The problem which Ferrari now have, is the widespread suspicion that they would only be looking for a #2 to Alonso, which will rightly discourage many drivers from accepting any offer they might make.

Really Ferrari have created a situation where they can only look at people like Kovy and Glock, who are presumably desperate to get out of the bottom-ranked teams. But that might actually suit Ferrari anyway, as long as they feel that Alonso is delivering.

For at least 3 posts now you've come up with that stuff "widespread suspicion", "some say", "XY suggests Z", etc. Everyone can make up any old crap that way, it gets us nowhere.

I'm sure that development requests which suit #1 driver will be responded to and delivered before development requests for car #2 are even considered.

And when car2's driver is told by his RE that car1's driver is faster than him... not a surprise that car2's driver stops trying to win.

Look at the last 5 WCC

2007 Ferrari2008 Ferrari2009 Brawn2010 RBR2011 RBR

Which of these was won by a team with a clear #1 driver policy, as there has been at Ferrari since 2010?

You can't expect a driver who has no hope of winning the championship to race at 100%. If he is racing just for his salary, then he'll perform to get that salary and no more.

Massa is not racing for his salary he's racing for his Ferrari future, to suggest he's de-motivated and not trying is ridiculous

Explain this: Ferrari has had one of the fastest drivers of all time since 2010 and has not won the WCC since 2008. They've had Massa since 2007. Alonso won the WDC in 2005 and 2006 yet Ferrari, with their #1 policy has been unable to win the WCC or the WDC since he joined them. How can this be?

Well in 2007 and 2008 Ferrari had the fastest car, does that answer your question?

a fernando alonso without no.1 status is very different to a fernando alonso with no.1 status. just compare first and second half of 2010 for the reference

Silly reasoning. As if there aren't dozens of other explanations for a bad run of a driver. Alonso also had a bad first half of 2008 while being no.1+

And then the other drivers with their bad periods (everyone has them, most of them more and for longer than Alonso). Raikönnen in 2008/09 didn't do so well, maybe cause they took away his no.1 status? What with Hamilton in 2011, was he missing the good old days alongside Kova? What's with Button this season, someone send him a mail "you're not no.1!" in May?

The only thing any driver going alongside Alonso has to achieve is matching his laptimes in the short term and then beat them in the middle term. While matching Alonsos consistency and/or throw him off balance with his performances. Then that new driver will become de-facto no.1 and Alonso would have to deal with it.

Would that be a tough task? You bet! And why should it be any other way? What you seem to demand, however, is Ferrari giving proven worse drivers than Alonso strict equal treatment. That makes no sense, and it won't happen. Do you really believe, even with super-equality, Massa would be capable of more than stealing valuable points from Alonso every 10th or so race, while overall never getting even close to beat him in the WDC? From what I've seen over the last years, that would be the "best" Massa could ever hope for.

That is the thing. I am not so sure Ferrari, because of their policy, is even willing to give a driver that comes in, any driver, a shot at challenging FA. Let's face it, they have a top 4 driver who could probably only really be challenged by the other top 3, they have seen FA's reaction to teammate pressure, so why risk it? I am not demanding that a proven worse driver like Massa is given equal chance, but that a new one, especially one with promise like Perez for example, is.

The bolded doesn't make much sense, given that Massa was allowed to race Alonso for the first half of 2010. And for that we even have evidence, not just what you think.... If Alonso had negotiated no.1 status in his contract that wouldn't have happened.

Well, exactly. Massa had it all laid out for him at the start of 2010. He knew the team, the style of car Ferrari builds, had beaten their last champion for 1.5 years. Yet still Alonso outperformed him very quickly and since the gap has only grown. The simple truth is, Massa can't match, let alone beat Alonso for any length of time. Once in a blue moon, yes, but every other driver on the grid (well, maybe not Narain) could do that to every top driver.

In a nutshell: Alonso is a distinctively better F1 driver than Massa, and he's using that advantage to full effect. What else do you expect?

Well, I didn't say that FA had No. 1 from the beginning, but by mid 2010 and 2011 he did. Is it in his contract? I guess we'll never know. The only hard evidence we have is HH 2010 and that is part of my point: in the balance between WDC and WCC, Ferrari clearly chose the WDC very early on (Massa had still WDC possibilities). Did this damage Massa and, therefore, their WCC chances from there on? Maybe. From what we have seen, probably. But it just goes to prove that Massa is not the driver Ferrari need right now and that, in a way, it's Ferrari's policy what makes it so difficult to improve their WCC chances.

"The Frenchman replaced Gerhard Berger at Ferrari and was partnered with Britain's Nigel Mansell for 1990. As reigning world champion, Prost took over as the team's lead driver and was said to have played on Mansell's inferiority complex. Mansell recalls one incident where at the 1990 British Grand Prix, the car he drove didn't handle the same as in the previous race where he had taken pole position, and later found out from team mechanics that Prost saw Mansell as having a superior car and had them swapped without Mansell knowing."

Yep, same old regurtitated thinking here again. Massa is only ever asked to play a no.2 role when he's realistically out of the championship.

Rubbish, Germany 2010 was totally uncalled for. The rest of the season made clear it was the right thing to do, but they were ready to sacrifice Felipe when he was very much still in the WDC race. Felipe would have left Hockenheim 24 points off Alonso, less than a race.

No, I do not believe that Alonso will 'automatically' beat anyone who comes in. I do think, however, there isn't a driver on the grid good enough to relegate him to no.2 status, so at most, there will be two equal status drivers at Ferrari with Alonso there.

Exactly, but given Ferrari's policy, someone that can compete with FA is not a realistic possibility. That's why it's so difficult for them to fight for the WCC. Having said that, there should be some alternatives that are better than Massa atm.

Well we know for a fact that Ferrari did not exercise any no.1/no.2 status at Ferrari until Hockenheim 2010. There were a few times prior to that where Massa was ahead of Alonso and Ferrari never ordered Massa to let Alonso by. This destroys any notion that Alonso ever had defacto no.1 status in the team. Just like with Kimi/Massa, nobody gets no.1 treatment until their teammate is out of the championship(realistically) and they are still in it. People will hold on to the idea just because they dont like Ferrari/Alonso or at least have a notion of them that simply cannot be shaken no matter how much evidence is shown to contradict it.

Maybe he did not have defacto No. 1 (we can't prove that he did or didn't), but after HH (half a season?) he had, at least, clear No. 1 status. Kimi/MAssa was completely different as Massa did not have any mathematical chance at the WDC and it was closer to the end of the season. Let's say, it was "more normal" TOs. We have seen what can happen in half a championship but in 2010 Ferrari chose to go with FA very early. As I said in a previous post, that may have damaged their future chances at WCCs (with Massa) from then on. But it's a fine balance I guess that other teams IMO have been better at.

Yep, same old regurtitated thinking here again. Massa is only ever asked to play a no.2 role when he's realistically out of the championship. Otherwise, there's no evidence that he's not being given a fair crack at the start of each season. Its not Ferrari's fault Massa hasn't been as competitive, but everyone wants to assume it is because of the Schumi years. Its not the same team anymore, though. Hasn't been for a while.

I guess "reallistically" is in the eye of the beholder...And IMO you need to give them equal chance throughout the season, not only at the beginning. Is Massa bad because he's not motivated as a No. 2, or is he not motivated because FA is beating him consistently? We don't know, but I am going to venture that Ferrari's WCCs chances would have been much better if they hadn't chosen so quickly in 2010.

Exactly, but given Ferrari's policy, someone that can compete with FA is not a realistic possibility. That's why it's so difficult for them to fight for the WCC. Having said that, there should be some alternatives that are better than Massa atm.

Maybe he did not have defacto No. 1 (we can't prove that he did or didn't), but after HH (half a season?) he had, at least, clear No. 1 status. Kimi/MAssa was completely different as Massa did not have any mathematical chance at the WDC and it was closer to the end of the season. Let's say, it was "more normal" TOs. We have seen what can happen in half a championship but in 2010 Ferrari chose to go with FA very early. As I said in a previous post, that may have damaged their future chances at WCCs (with Massa) from then on. But it's a fine balance I guess that other teams IMO have been better at.

I guess "reallistically" is in the eye of the beholder...And IMO you need to give them equal chance throughout the season, not only at the beginning. Is Massa bad because he's not motivated as a No. 2, or is he not motivated because FA is beating him consistently? We don't know, but I am going to venture that Ferrari's WCCs chances would have been much better if they hadn't chosen so quickly in 2010.

In fairness to Ferrari, if they replaced Massa for the 2010 campaign, that would have been seen as very poor form in light of Massa's accident.

That is the thing. I am not so sure Ferrari, because of their policy, is even willing to give a driver that comes in, any driver, a shot at challenging FA. Let's face it, they have a top 4 driver who could probably only really be challenged by the other top 3, they have seen FA's reaction to teammate pressure, so why risk it? I am not demanding that a proven worse driver like Massa is given equal chance, but that a new one, especially one with promise like Perez for example, is.

Well, I didn't say that FA had No. 1 from the beginning, but by mid 2010 and 2011 he did. Is it in his contract? I guess we'll never know. The only hard evidence we have is HH 2010 and that is part of my point: in the balance between WDC and WCC, Ferrari clearly chose the WDC very early on (Massa had still WDC possibilities). Did this damage Massa and, therefore, their WCC chances from there on? Maybe. From what we have seen, probably. But it just goes to prove that Massa is not the driver Ferrari need right now and that, in a way, it's Ferrari's policy what makes it so difficult to improve their WCC chances.

Basically you can take my replies to Billbald as responses to you as well. Of course we all can fantasize to our hearts contents, but why mix those fantasies with terms like "proof" or "evidence"?

Basically you can take my replies to Billbald as responses to you as well. Of course we all can fantasize to our hearts contents, but why mix those fantasies with terms like "proof" or "evidence"?

I think you're asking for the impossible with regards to proof or evidence. All anyone can do is speculate on rumours, on track action and even pit radio communiction to form our opinions. The only proof or evidence that I suspect would suit your argument is a copy of both drivers' contracts, and we both know that ain't gonna happen, so perhaps concentrating upon and discussing what evidence / circumstance / events we are privvy to is more constructive than shouting "show me the proof" which you full know cannot or ever will be revealed!

I think you're asking for the impossible with regards to proof or evidence.

Strawman alert! I don't ask for proof of anything.

All anyone can do is speculate on rumours, on track action and even pit radio communiction to form our opinions. The only proof or evidence that I suspect would suit your argument is a copy of both drivers' contracts, and we both know that ain't gonna happen, so perhaps concentrating upon and discussing what evidence / circumstance / events we are privvy to is more constructive than shouting "show me the proof" which you full know cannot or ever will be revealed!

Again you talk of "evidence".

And no, I don't agree that stuff made up from presumptions and assumptions mixed with personal likes and dislikes is more constructive than... well, anything. I remains idle speculation, maybe useful for killing time, but not much else.

"The Frenchman replaced Gerhard Berger at Ferrari and was partnered with Britain's Nigel Mansell for 1990. As reigning world champion, Prost took over as the team's lead driver and was said to have played on Mansell's inferiority complex. Mansell recalls one incident where at the 1990 British Grand Prix, the car he drove didn't handle the same as in the previous race where he had taken pole position, and later found out from team mechanics that Prost saw Mansell as having a superior car and had them swapped without Mansell knowing."

I think you're asking for the impossible with regards to proof or evidence. All anyone can do is speculate on rumours, on track action and even pit radio communiction to form our opinions. The only proof or evidence that I suspect would suit your argument is a copy of both drivers' contracts, and we both know that ain't gonna happen, so perhaps concentrating upon and discussing what evidence / circumstance / events we are privvy to is more constructive than shouting "show me the proof" which you full know cannot or ever will be revealed!

The fact that Ferrari have failed to win a WDC or a WCC, despite having huge resources and arguably the best driver of his generation while teams without a clear #1 driver policy are succeeding must give some indication that this policy is wrong.

Put forward a coherent rebuttal then. You can't dismiss one party's body of evidence without countering with a rational argument of your own.

Schumacher / Barichello : Pretty clear who was boss (Austria 01, 02) as just one example.Schumacher / Massa : Massa admitting that Schumacher was his mentor. Defacto number two.Massa / Raikkonen : Actually quite interesting. There did not seem to be a clear no.1 there for the first time in a long time.Alonso / Massa : Fernando is faster than you. Enough said.

Then there is the Mansell / Prost argument I gave. The anomaly is Massa / Raikkonen, as neither driver established dominance, pretty much in the same way Berger / Alesi operated. However, once Ferrari have a quality driver on their books, make no mistake that Ferrari throw all their eggs in one basket. It's just my opinion, and I look forward to reading your counter argument.

The fact that Ferrari have failed to win a WDC or a WCC, despite having huge resources and arguably the best driver of his generation while teams without a clear #1 driver policy are succeeding must give some indication that this policy is wrong.

Maybe the other cars are just better! McLaren are obsessed with equality but they haven't won anything either.

'92: Capelli and Alesi (Who was number 1)'93 - '94 Berger and Alesi (Who was number 1)

We know Schumacher had number 1 status during his tenure but then who was the number 1 between Raikkonen and Massa?

Show me proof to the contrary then please. It's all well and good spouting "Well that's not an official Ferrari press release, so I don't believe that", but that's a tired old argument thrown out because you know there is no way on earth the proof you impatiently require can be produced (see my earlier post). I have though, conceded that if Ferrari don't have a clear cut No.1 driver, then they tend to let drivers fight it out (again, see my recent posting history on this subject).

I see Ferrari's policy being that if they have a clear cut, superior driver then the resources of the team are put behind that driver to capture the WDC. The no.2 is almost irrelevant. And in itself I have no arguments with that whatsoever, just primarily against people who think that everything is a level playing field at the home of the prancing horse.

Well this has been argued on numerous occasions, wins, fastest laps, pole positions speak for themselves

Rubbish, Germany 2010 was totally uncalled for. The rest of the season made clear it was the right thing to do, but they were ready to sacrifice Felipe when he was very much still in the WDC race. Felipe would have left Hockenheim 24 points off Alonso, less than a race.

Put forward a coherent rebuttal then. You can't dismiss one party's body of evidence without countering with a rational argument of your own.

Schumacher / Barichello : Pretty clear who was boss (Austria 01, 02) as just one example.Schumacher / Massa : Massa admitting that Schumacher was his mentor. Defacto number two.Massa / Raikkonen : Actually quite interesting. There did not seem to be a clear no.1 there for the first time in a long time.Alonso / Massa : Fernando is faster than you. Enough said.

Then there is the Mansell / Prost argument I gave. The anomaly is Massa / Raikkonen, as neither driver established dominance, pretty much in the same way Berger / Alesi operated. However, once Ferrari have a quality driver on their books, make no mistake that Ferrari throw all their eggs in one basket. It's just my opinion, and I look forward to reading your counter argument.

Put forward a coherent rebuttal then. You can't dismiss one party's body of evidence without countering with a rational argument of your own.

Schumacher / Barichello : Pretty clear who was boss (Austria 01, 02) as just one example.Schumacher / Massa : Massa admitting that Schumacher was his mentor. Defacto number two.Massa / Raikkonen : Actually quite interesting. There did not seem to be a clear no.1 there for the first time in a long time.Alonso / Massa : Fernando is faster than you. Enough said.

Then there is the Mansell / Prost argument I gave. The anomaly is Massa / Raikkonen, as neither driver established dominance, pretty much in the same way Berger / Alesi operated. However, once Ferrari have a quality driver on their books, make no mistake that Ferrari throw all their eggs in one basket. It's just my opinion, and I look forward to reading your counter argument.

Why should I counter what I agree with? As I said, you seem hellbound to built strawmen, for whatever reason.

I would make the tiny addition that with very few and mostly temporary exceptions, every team operates this way. Now go ahead and disprove that!

What I don't agree with are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation of assumptions people make based on the obvious fact that Massa is no. 2 at Ferrari. Assumptions like Ferrrai not wanting a better driver for fear of disturbing Alonso, like Massa being able to perform so much better if not for Hockenheim 2010, like Alonso being guaranteed no.1 in his contract, like no future driver ever getting a fighting chance alongside Alonso... you name it. All that is the kind of idle, unfounded specualtion I talked of earlier, and worth as much.

Ferrari team politics are rubbish. With only Alonso allowed to race for the title they never will maximise their WCC chances and also WDC chances. Sounds paradox but believe me, he will not win the title because they left Massa psychologically damaged so that he is not able to steal points from Alonso's rivals. Maybe next year Perez is immune to Alonso and Ferrari mind games and will kick some ass! Or at least win a race.

Rubbish, Germany 2010 was totally uncalled for. The rest of the season made clear it was the right thing to do, but they were ready to sacrifice Felipe when he was very much still in the WDC race. Felipe would have left Hockenheim 24 points off Alonso, less than a race.

Massa was realistically never in contention for the WDC

Yes. The gap to Alonso was not the point. Massa was 78 points behind the WDC lead (held by Hamilton) having scored only 67 in the first half of the season. Ferrari were looking at the bigger picture of the WDC. Massa was too far back.

Yes. The gap to Alonso was not the point. Massa was 78 points behind the WDC lead (held by Hamilton) having scored only 67 in the first half of the season. Ferrari were looking at the bigger picture of the WDC. Massa was too far back.

Fact: Massa should have left 24 points off Alonso. Alonso almost makes it.

Are the 4 2012 challengers "realistically" out of it then? Cos they´re almost twice that distance...

EDIT: I don´t suscribe the view that Ferrari is picking Massa default n2. He´s driving worse than Alonso and THAT makes him n2. However, the Hockenheim thing was totally uncalled for. With your drivers less than a race appart and halfway through, you don´t use team-orders.

Fact: Massa should have left 24 points off Alonso. Alonso almost makes it.

Are the 4 2012 challengers "realistically" out of it then? Cos they´re almost twice that distance...

EDIT: I don´t suscribe the view that Ferrari is picking Massa default n2. He´s driving worse than Alonso and THAT makes him n2. However, the Hockenheim thing was totally uncalled for. With your drivers less than a race appart and halfway through, you don´t use team-orders.

You are arguing that he could, conceivably, have caught Alonso. So what? You have missed the point completely. He could not challenge for the WDC whereas Alonso could (and did).

There should only be a need to order one driver aside when there is no chance, theoretical or not, to win the WDC. Germany 2010 was far too early for Ferrari to make that call. If Fernando was faster then why was he behind Massa?

Hi DrF.

Well, it was mainly because of what happened at the race start. Alonso from P2 was forced aside, rightwards, by Vettel (P1) who was defending his P1 position a bit harshly. This opened a big gap at the left of the track by where Massa, from P3, could go through and take the lead. Despite Vettel's manoeuvre to block Alonso, this latter could finally get in front of Vettel when all them were arriving at turn 1. However, both Massa and Vettel got there so fast that got out of the track at the exit of turn 1; only Alonso kept the car inside the track. See this video.

Alonso had been faster than Massa during practice (except in P1 in which Alonso had some problems or something as he was almost 3 seconds behind Massa and the rest) and all rounds in qualifying by the usual 4 tenths margin. Alonso lost pole from Vettel by just 2 thousandths. Alonso was actually faster than Massa there, as usual.

Well, it was mainly because of what happened at the race start. Alonso from P2 was forced aside, rightwards, by Vettel (P1) who was defending his P1 position a bit harshly. This opened a big gap at the left of the track by where Massa, from P3, could go through and take the lead. Despite Vettel's manoeuvre to block Alonso, this latter could finally get in front of Vettel when all them were arriving at turn 1. However, both Massa and Vettel got there so fast that got out of the track at the exit of turn 1; only Alonso kept the car inside the track. See this video.

Alonso had been faster than Massa during practice (except in P1 in which Alonso had some problems or something as he was almost 3 seconds behind Massa and the rest) and all rounds in qualifying by the usual 4 tenths margin. Alonso lost pole from Vettel by just 2 thousandths. Alonso was actually faster than Massa there, as usual.

DrF however raises a good point, I remember Alonso had a couple of chances to pass during the race but made mistakes and so was unable to capitalise.

I also have to remark on the differences in performance between Alonso and Massa, before and after Hockenheim 2010.

Before the team orders when both had equal status Massa not only led the WDC at one point but also the race, while Alonso had made a series of errors up until Silverstone the race before.

After the team orders and with the team fully behind him Alonso than put in a stellar second half to come from 40 points behind and almost clinch the world championship (Spa aside), while Massa spiralled into mediocrity.

Why should I counter what I agree with? As I said, you seem hellbound to built strawmen, for whatever reason.

I would make the tiny addition that with very few and mostly temporary exceptions, every team operates this way. Now go ahead and disprove that!

What I don't agree with are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation of assumptions people make based on the obvious fact that Massa is no. 2 at Ferrari. Assumptions like Ferrrai not wanting a better driver for fear of disturbing Alonso, like Massa being able to perform so much better if not for Hockenheim 2010, like Alonso being guaranteed no.1 in his contract, like no future driver ever getting a fighting chance alongside Alonso... you name it. All that is the kind of idle, unfounded specualtion I talked of earlier, and worth as much.

The fact that Ferrari have not replaced Massa, in spite of his very poor performance since early 2010, demands some kind of explanation.

That's a reality which any unbiased person should be able to accept. There is no similarity to the #2 driver in any other top team.

Ferrari won't tell us what they are thinking, so we can only speculate, and we can also decide which speculation is more reasonable. I suppose that forum rules don't allow me to speculate on why you continually attempt to shut down the discussion.

I also have to remark on the differences in performance between Alonso and Massa, before and after Hockenheim 2010.

Before the team orders when both had equal status Massa not only led the WDC at one point but also the race, while Alonso had made a series of errors up until Silverstone the race before.

After the team orders and with the team fully behind him Alonso than put in a stellar second half to come from 40 points behind and almost clinch the world championship (Spa aside), while Massa spiralled into mediocrity.

Makes you think.

This is wrong. Massa's results after Germany 2010 were actually better than the first half. Massa only stellar results in the first half were the the two races at the beginning. After that he disappeared into obscurity and only showed up in Germany again and proceeded to record a couple of podiums and 4th places.

I also have to remark on the differences in performance between Alonso and Massa, before and after Hockenheim 2010.

Before the team orders when both had equal status Massa not only led the WDC at one point but also the race, while Alonso had made a series of errors up until Silverstone the race before.

After the team orders and with the team fully behind him Alonso than put in a stellar second half to come from 40 points behind and almost clinch the world championship (Spa aside), while Massa spiralled into mediocrity.

Makes you think.

First, Alonso didn't make "a series" of errors. I count 3: the jump start, crash in Monaco free practice and the move on Kubica in Silverstone, the latter already being a bit of a stretch to count as a full blown mistake.

Second, yes Massa was ahead of him a few times, but even in that period he never was able to drive away from Alonso in the race, instead he usually held Alonso up, fighting like I've hardly seen Massa fight anyone else. Curisously the only time Massa really had a better all-round weekend than Alonso came in Spa, at a time Alonso was already de-facto no.1 and Massa, by common wisdom of this board, already a broken man courtesy of Hockenheim. So that one doesn't fit the theory at all, I'm afraid.

And finally, everyone conveniently ignores the most likely reason for Alonsos mediocre first half of 2010, namely how he had to adjust to a new team, car and working environment. Alonso himself is on record before the season warning not to expect him at 100 percent during the first races, and guess what he was right. A certain Jenson Button has frequently alluded to similar things, it's simply unreasonable for a driver changing teams to be at his best from the go (the odd early win notwithstanding). But of course such trivialities don't fit with theories of weak Alonso unable to compete with his teammates, so they are ignored like you just did. Go figure.

Anyway I trust you'll remember things like acclimatisation phases and learning curves of integration, once Hamilton has changed teams one day.

The fact that Ferrari have not replaced Massa, in spite of his very poor performance since early 2010, demands some kind of explanation.

Not necessarily yours, though.

That's a reality which any unbiased person should be able to accept. There is no similarity to the #2 driver in any other top team.

You're not, by any chance, trying to sell yourself as such an unbiased person, or are you? And there are similarities - to McLaren which didn't fire Kova after 2008. Whats the explanation for that?

Again, name me one driver available, willing and definitely able to do better than Massa.

Ferrari won't tell us what they are thinking, so we can only speculate, and we can also decide which speculation is more reasonable. I suppose that forum rules don't allow me to speculate on why you continually attempt to shut down the discussion.

Don't be such a drama queen. Challenging your opinion doesn't equal an attempt to shut anything down. Just try to come up with something more substantial than the "many think" or "any unbiased person" platitudes. Thats not arguing, it's just claiming an anonymous majority on your side nobody can question or challenge.